ACME Overview
draft-moriarty-acme-overview-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-05-13
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
IETF                                                         K. Moriarty
Internet-Draft                                                   DellEMC
Intended status: Standards Track                           M. Richardson
Expires: November 14, 2019                                     Sandelman
                                                            May 13, 2019

                             ACME Overview
                    draft-moriarty-acme-overview-00

Abstract

   Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) core protocol
   addresses the use case of web server certificates for TLS and defines
   authentication challenge types to automate certificate issuance.
   This document describes the orthoganal nature of certificate types to
   challenge types for a better understanding of the applicability of
   challenge types to various certificate types.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Moriarty & Richardson   Expires November 14, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                ACME Overview                     May 2019

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Key Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Why Not EST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Why EST, Bootstrapping with BRSKI . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Why EST and BRSKI with ACME, or KMIP with ACME  . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Authentication Challenges and Certificate Types . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.3.  URL References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix B.  Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   ACME [RFC8555] is a mechanism for automating certificate management
   on the Internet.  It enables administrative entities to prove
   effective control over resources like domain names, and automates the
   process of generating and issuing certificates.

   ACME was designed for web server certificates with the possibility to
   create extensions for other use cases and certificate types.
   Although it was not explicitly stated, the challenge types defined in
   RFC8555 and any other ACME extensions may be used with any
   certificate type as deemed appropriate by the Certificate Authority
   management.  The defined challenge types are orthogonal in nature to
   the certificate type that may be specified in the protocol document
   definition.  For instance, it is possible to use a a pre-defined
   authentictaion challenge, such as a DNS resource record RFC8555
   [RFC8555] originally specificed for web server certificates, to
   authenticate a device to be issued a client certificate.  In this
   scenario, the only change necessary would be in the CSR.  There is
   nothing in the ACME protocol challenge/response mechanism that
   specifies the certificate type.  When designing extensions or
   revewing options to implement ACME, understanding that the
   certificate type is decoupled from the challenge type may be
Show full document text